Newt Gingrich: Let's End Adolescence

[Earthling]

Ah, c'mon, not all of us can be like Lee Young-Ho, the most amazing teen prodigy in the world! I find most of this article full of holes; the parts that are not hole-y are just rhetoric. Examples of famous individuals throughout history (=anecdotes) are never a good way to prove something is good for all of society. Like many others have said, how many millions of children worked in sweatshops and factories throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. A life of hard work was by no means glamorous or beneficial to any of them. And, Newt of course makes the nearly contradictory argument that "today's jobs and work require much more education" and "younger children should be ready to work in today's society." On a personal basis, sure, kids can get benefit out of the general fast-food/service industry jobs available, but the idea that modern society should send its children back to working is deplorable (and at age 13 or 14 teens are simply not the same as adult workers-there's a reason states all over the US, though they may have slight differences, set general employment ages a couple years higher)

To address the topic of the United States' schooling-which really is such a huge issue in itself, first I'm just not gonna ignore the hypocrisy inherent in such a position as that of Newt Gingrich. It's not only Republicans, but Newt is certainly in that large group of people who have supported NCLB, teaching creationism, abstinence only, or other issues detrimental to education - these things are part of the problem with our system.

So, the idea of paying students for grades is flat-out bad in my mind- it is likely to be incredibly abusive by your typical teenager (as in the suburban high school I went to-lots of grade inflation). Such a thing could only be of slight use in poor communities-but imagine politicians having to decide which schools to fund for this- and even then the poor could probably benefit from other spending on services (why pay the kid when you should be paying more for better teachers). Same thing for "scholarships" for graduating early-how do you even judge this (by age?); what about private schooled or home schooled students who would just want to show up to cash their check. And, of course, I'm sure there are many people here who would never want to be taxed to fund such a program

Lastly, I'm always one of the first to resent the notion that the United States is falling behind in math and sciences. Besides huge disparities in testing conditions in various countries (and it really depends on the specific study, it's not all of them, but often you do see nations like China only test their best students) the US still attracts and educates great students. Problems that really need to be addressed are general performance/dropouts in less successful communities (I haven't ever really seen statistics that students at, well, more wealthy communities in the US can't keep up). And again, it really doesn't help that so much of our culture and then people making anti-science campaigns (global warming, creationism) is undermining any other efforts in this country.

Oh, and finally, massive points to Sun Microsystems- anything open source (be it actually computer related or just educational texts and materials) does have my support. At least they are certainly education friendly enough in the technology of today's modern world.

 

[Lay_Lay]

Um, it's called Parenting, Newt. The kids with responsible parents don't need your ideas here.
Kids can and do graduate early, and with college credits.

 

[downtown]

And allowing high school students to choose their own course of study to a larger degree isn't "pigeonholing", it's allowing creative freedom, which ultimately will benefit society.

Well, we already let them to a decently large degree. The state mandated credit requirements don't account for every single class...a student is free to explore a subject he finds more interesting in greater depth, and to neglect other subjects after a certain point. Nobody is actually *mandated* to take trig or calc in high school. The only subject you need to take all 4 years in English, and given how low the bar is, thats hardly an overbearing requirement.

 

[aelf]

And again, it really doesn't help that so much of our culture and then people making anti-science campaigns (global warming, creationism) is undermining any other efforts in this country.

Did you just lump global warming together with creationism? Obviously, you're not the best walking example

 

[Earthling]

Another thing, though there is a lot of vehement opposition to this out there, is that the United States doesn't have national curriculum standards, and I think we need to take steps in that direction. Basically each state can create its own individual requirements and these do vary greatly. The same thing applies to standardized tests for graduation because states can write their own tests; eg. students in Mississippi may appear to do better on Mississippi tests and students in Massachusetts on their tests, but this is meaningless. Also, people still simply have different opinions on what should be required- for instance, I'm glad that my state didn't require 4 years of mandatory PE as it can be such a waste.

I have been under the impression that the United States, in comparison to other Western countries (specifically Europe) doesn't "track" students as early. This isn't necessarily good or bad, but I agree we tend to put all students on a more general curriculum. However, I'll reiterate once again that no one can really change this without some form of power over all the states to prevent them from creating idiosyncratic requirements. (As an anecdote, a girl in my high school class had to take a history course with the freshmen because she moved from another state and didn't have that "credit").

Edit: Aelf, I know I haven't been around very long so OT doesn't know my views. Of course, I mean anti-global warming science; the whole idea of treating these things as "scientific controversy" in the first place. Creationism also isn't the best example because what they actually want to teach is "intelligent design"-but it's what is handy for calling the issue.

 

[aelf]

Edit: Aelf, I know I haven't been around very long so OT doesn't know my views. Of course, I mean anti-global warming science; the whole idea of treating these things as "scientific controversy" in the first place. Creationism also isn't the best example because what they actually want to teach is "intelligent design"-but it's what is handy for calling the issue.

Well, to be fair, saying that global warming (instead of anti-global warming) is not scientific conveys the opposite message

But some people here do think that, so forgive me for jumping to conclusions...

 

[RedRalph]

Who in their right mind calls their son "Newt"? Was he born to a cabal of witches?

 

[Dann]

I agree to the proposal for getting rid of adolescence, but for a different reason.

Adolescence is the age where our reproductive hormones are raging the wildest, and yet society represses our biological urges in the name of education and preparing us for a better future. What humanity needs to do is to develop a better method of education which would need less time for individuals to absorb. I for one dream of a future where we only need primary school to learn everything necessary to function in society (as a low-ranking prole of course.Those more academically inclined will still have the options to further educate themselves. At their own expense.) and then at age 13 or 14 be free to indulge in whatever adult pursuits that their bodies are pushing them to do, but now with no one but themselves to face the consequences, as they are already fully equipped to deal with them.

Oh well in theory anyway. Maturity is always relative. Even today, nay, especially today we see all too many 30 somethings still acting like teenagers...

 

[Hygro]

Newt's wrong but he's right. He's right we should change the culture of adolescence. He's right that we should structure adolescence so that the most respected-by-teens are the most respectable people, not the coolest among their peers. He's right that we should not baby our teenagers, he's right that we should reward the pursuit of a challenging education with the kind of gratification (i.e. payment or otherwise, not the promise of some decade-delayed prestige or wealth) that entices those with the talent to be scholars but who by their nature need something more in their face.

Stop hating, he's adding to the debate.

 

[choxorn]

I have a better idea lets end newt gingrich

I agree totally.

 

[bathsheba666]

......He's right we should change the culture of adolescence. He's right that we should structure adolescence so that the most respected-by-teens are the most respectable people, not the coolest among their peers.........

Ah, you mean abolish it, and replace it with a capitalist approved alternative

Stop hating, he's adding to the debate.

Like the Holocaust added to notions of being Jewish...

 

[Shylock]

Hell of a thing for him to say. The government through their compulsory schooling till 16 or 18 and "child labour laws" that made us so childish in the first place.

 

[Ayatollah So]

All I'm saying is that I think many - probably close to all - children are fundamentally able to participate in society as adults earlier than they're presently expected to do, and it wouldn't be a bad thing to find a way to accomodate that.

I suspect it's actually more a matter of participating in society, with the as adults part being less important. Although more rights and responsibilities might help too. Education as practiced in the US is probably too isolative.

I haven't looked at the research on education practices and outcomes, but I'd bet at long odds that --
(A) The Truth Is Out There, i.e. data exists on a wide variety of different methods of teaching and learning, some lying well outside our usual "school-as-factory" model for "producing" educated people, and
(B) The Truth Is WAY Out There, i.e., the best methods, by pretty much any sane measure you want to use, are dramatically different from the going practice.

Newt's wrong but he's right. He's right we should change the culture of adolescence. He's right that we should structure adolescence so that the most respected-by-teens are the most respectable people, not the coolest among their peers.

Integrating students more into "real life" and not isolating the age-group, would go a long way toward that goal, I think.

 

[Hygro]

Ah, you mean abolish it, and replace it with a capitalist approved alternative

Uh, no I don't. Way to read what isn't written, and not read what is. I started by saying Newt is wrong. But then I said what is right about what Newt said. Now you're accusing me of something I never said I supported.

Your second comment merits no response other than that it bears no response.

 

[bathsheba666]

Uh, no I don't. Way to read what isn't written, and not read what is. I started by saying Newt is wrong. But then I said what is right about what Newt said. Now you're accusing me of something I never said I supported.

Uh, way to ignore what is written. I was commenting on the sentences I directly quoted, not the stuff I excised around it.
I take it you don't like the paraphrasing.

Your second comment merits no response other than that it bears no response.

Well, if you really believe that, you kind of wasted your time pointing it out....

 

[Hygro]

Uh, way to ignore what is written. I was commenting on the sentences I directly quoted, not the stuff I excised around it.
I take it you don't like the paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing is great. Tell me where I support abolishing completely adolescence in favor of a "capitalist alternative"? Oh, but Hygro I meant Newt meant that! No, really? But he meant that in conjunction with some respectable stuff that I agree with. And he added to the debate.

 

[Merkinball]

Highly intellectual debate here. I mean really. The detractors here are just so overwhelmingly intellectual with their arguments that I really don't think I have a leg to stand on here. We should end Newt Gingrich. Super stuff.

It's really remarkable how Newt's obvious argument of increasing the standards of education, putting pressure on people to act in responsible manners, so that we don't just compete in a high-tech globalized world, but lead it; somehow managed to turn into "Newt wants us to go back to working in sweatshops, take our cars away, and generally make us all suffer more." Yes. Newts call to improve our standards so that we can outpace third world nations is actually Newt calling upon us to become a third world nation working in sweatshops and whatnot. Yup. We are on the ball today!

It's remarkable really. You guys blather on endlessly, distorting the entire thesis of the piece from top to bottom, and you fail to acknowledge the grotesque shortcomings of modern American society which coddles children into a perpetual state of dependence. And heaven forbid we end that I guess.

What's the problem here? In all sincerity, what is the need to continue down this wretched course we are on? What, do we summarily reject the gross negative aspects about the children we are culturing in our society? It's unfair for Newt to point out rampant drug use, rampant STD's, rampant teenage pregnancy, and other aspects which are driven in part because we have societal system which allows for it, and in some cases promotes negative self destructive behavior from occuring in the first place?

We can't move backwards, because obviously backwards must not be as good as forwards. Yup. That seems to make a lot of sense to me. I think I'm gonna go vote for change for changes sake because there's no possible way that change could possibly be worse than not-changing things...

I feel like smashing my head into the computer desk.

The fact of the matter is that the society we had in the past is what laid the foundation and constructed everything we have today. And the society that we have today is inherently self-destructive and regressive, and this pattern of dependence and irresponsibility occurs in adolescence and is progressively growing into adulthood by any definition of the word adulthood. At some point America is going to come to a tragic tipping point where we are simply going to regress rapidly because the 5% who support everybody else aren't going to stay here. And the remaining 95% are still going to be doing drugs, losing their virginities as inept, irresponsible, dependent "children", having kids themselves, and won't be able to read or do simple math. Of course, the alternative is a society where the rich stay, but wage gaps continue to increase because the vast majority of "adults" we produce in this society are completely hapless, have no techical skills, and are destined to be nothing more than service sector lackies working for "the man."

The equation we have established today is not good. But hey, it's nice to know that there is not one single solitary substantive argument against what Newt is proposing. Just a bunch of worthless distortions that couldn't be farther from the truth or what Newt is forwarding. That, in my book anyway, is a hint that Newt is headed in the generally right direction. If Obama supporters don't like it, then it's probably where we should be headed.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Great ideas!

I think he's got culture and education confused with adolescence.

 

[Narz]

You guys blather on endlessly, distorting the entire thesis of the piece from top to bottom, and you fail to acknowledge the grotesque shortcomings of modern American society which coddles children into a perpetual state of dependence. And heaven forbid we end that I guess.

I'm never one to "fail to acknowledge the grotesque shortcomings of modern American society".

That said, I find this kind of ironic considering (IIRC) you were trying to demonize me for talking about having the age of consent be 16 (or thereabouts).

IMO, the whole "you're too young to be able to handle sex/"abstinence only" silliness doesn't fit with the "let young adults have rights & responsibilities" argument. Not to mention, it doesn't work. When you demonize anything from alcohol (prohibition) to Elvis to death metal to rap you simply make it more alluring to naive young people. The more you keep them in the dark & try to control them, the less able they are to be have to handle themselves in said situations & the more likely they are to act impulsively. Like the stupid overprotective dad who doesn't want his daughter to have sex 'till 40 who ends up with a little slut.

The whole argument that young adults deserve more rights & responsibilities is a good one but we shouldn't give the rights "so they're stop doing drugs and having sex", we should give them rights so they'll be allowed to have other opportunities &, IMO, drugs & sex should be talked about openly & clinically so as to reduce the "OMG, secret, naughty fun!" factor.

 

[Merkinball]

I don't think that I'd be one to demonize anybody for lowering the age of consent to 16. Ideally, I see no reason why that couldn't happen. But if you really think I did demonize you for something like this, feel free to PM me just exactly where I did it.

And I think you're partially missing the point too Narz. The reason that kids today are "yoo young" to handle sex is because of the way we raise them now. They don't know anything about responsibility because they're supposed to learn that in freakin college, or when they look for their first real job. If children have no reason to be responsible, and if they have no reason to obtain an education, then they're not going to be responsible, and they're not going to get an education. They're not going to do the right thing. We raise them like this. We promote this. And these are the reasons that they cannot mentally handle sex.

If they lived in a world where they needed to be responsible, and needed to obtain an education, or understood the potential ramifications of their decisions, then they would be responsibly enough to handle sex.

Get it? If you place the burden of responsibility on teenagers, then they will act like young adults. If you tell them that doing drugs is normal, then they'll go out and do drugs. If you tell them that they can only fail two grades, then they'll fail their two grades and get pushed through the rest of their schooling. If you tell them sex is cool and everybody does it, so do it, then they're not going to form meaningful mature relationships, nor understand the full effects or consequences of their actions.

Newts entire premise is creating a situation in which there is more importance on growing up, acting mature, acting responsible, being a responsible cog in society, doing what is right, and getting your freakin' act together.

you simply make it more alluring to naive young people. - Narz

Yup, and the entire goal is to generate young people that aren't naive in the first place. That's what we're doing now. That's what adolescence as we know it is. It's a time opened up for teenagers to be naive. It's a time that's been created where society as a whole turns a blind eye to anything that children or young adults do wrong. It's not curiousity that makes kids break rules. It's the fact that there are no consequences to breaking the rules that opens the door to children running the show and doing whatever the hell it is they want to do anyway.

It's fine to point that prohibition is wrong. But it's completely innaccurate to state it drives people to do it anyway. Kids don't have sex in the middle east. People cheat and sleep around far, far, far less in the middle east than they do anywhere else on earth.

Anyhow, I gotta go to grandma's for dinner. I'll hit up the rest later.